I never thought that the day would come when Day columnist David Collins would suggest that General Dynamics and other corporations should donate funds to illegally locate the National Coast Guard Museum in downtown New London ("General Dynamics needs to commit to Coast Guard Museum," Feb. 1.) The illegality comes from the violation of the water dependency provisions of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CMA).

Based on Collins' numerous opinion articles supporting the museum and the downtown location, which is equivalent to putting "two pounds of sausage in a one pound bag," I can infer that he has not read the CMA and its legislative history. So, I will provide him with a copy of the 1979 legislative proceedings creating the act and the pertinent statutory citations. Hopefully, Collins will read all the provided material and reassess his opinion on the location. Perhaps, he may then support the Fort Trumbull location where water dependency is not an issue because the River Walk landlocks the site.

Nonetheless, I am deeply concerned that the Coast Guard has made a poor choice in seeking to locate the museum behind the Union railroad station. There is no question that New London is the right host city, it is the downtown location that is dead wrong.

The railroad site is cramped - only one-third acre with no room for expansion. Traffic congestion in that area is bad now, but an influx of possibly 200,000 plus visitors a year traveling mostly by car would cause gridlock on an unprecedented scale for the downtown, which already acts as a chokepoint.

The selected site is at sea level, the area hard hit by the infamous 1938 hurricane. As the planet warms and the seas rise, severe storms are expected to become even more destructive. A 1938-type hurricane will surely come again to this vulnerable area.

Frugality makes me shudder when I consider the $80 million museum connected by a $20 million pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks and the expense to build a new pier for the Eagle. All unnecessary expenses if the museum were built elsewhere.

Fortunately, there is an elsewhere. The Fort Trumbull area is the logical site. It consists of 13 acres of upland in close proximity to the state park. The land has been cleared, there is plenty of room for expansion, and parking for cars and tour buses and GD employees. David Fox, Senior Environmental Analyst for the former Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) wrote to Commandant Winston E. Leslie in 2006: "The Department believes that locating the Museum on the Fort Trumbull peninsula would result in benefits to both the Park and the Museum, providing additional reasons for selection of this site."

The CAM also stresses the importance of scenic views/vistas. The views from Fort Trumbull's rocky heights are spectacular. The river traffic is in the foreground, several lighthouses are nearby, and the active Coast Guard Station and the Eagle, when berthed there, are right below.

Endorsements of the Fort Trumbull site for the Museum were strongly recommended by: the 2006 Site Selection Committee appointed by the commandant in 2005; the DEP statement supporting the site in 2006; the White Oaks Strategic Master Plan, and the 2010 Coast Guard Academy's Facilities Master Plan. That magnificent site is now a wasteland.

Furthermore, there is a lot of significant Coast Guard history at Fort Trumbull. It was the site of the earlier academy. It played a very active role in the Prohibition-era Rum War when numerous captured rum-running boats were converted into Coast Guard patrol boats. And in 1938, a Maritime Service Training School was established there and run by the guard for training Merchant Marine officers - the forerunner of today's King's Point.

So, it would be highly unwise for General Dynamics and other corporations to fund the museum unless the guard re-selected Fort Trumbull.

Robert Fromer is an environmental activist and former New London resident. He now lives in Windsor.